the constitution circa 1924

[loosecannon]

Read it and weep all you alleged strict constitutionalists:

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.

The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and that, consequently, the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Gitlow v. New York's partial reversal of that precedent began a trend toward nearly complete reversal; the Supreme Court now holds that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states. The Court upheld the state law challenged in Gitlow v. New York, which made it a crime to advocate the duty, need, or appropriateness of overthrowing government by force or violence. The Court's ruling on the effects of the Fourteenth Amendment was incidental to the decision, but nevertheless established an extremely significant precedent.

As justification for its decision, the Supreme Court relied on the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment. This provision, contained in Section One of the amendment, prohibits any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Specifically, in its decision the Court stated that "For present purposes we may and do assume that" the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states" (at 666). The Court would go on to use this logic of incorporation much more purposefully in other cases, such as De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional scholars refer to this process as the "incorporation doctrine," meaning that the Supreme Court incorporates specific rights into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So between 1833 and 1925 the bill of rights could be suspended in the various states by state law.

Is that the conservative past you want to return to? Is that the strict constitutionalism you long for?

 

[loosecannon]

Gitlow v. New York was also important for defining the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech following the period of the "Red Scare," in which Communists and Socialist Party members were routinely convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918. Gitlow, a Socialist, had been convicted of criminal anarchy after publishing a "Left Wing Manifesto." The Court upheld his conviction on the basis that the government may suppress or punish speech when it directly advocates the unlawful overthrowing of the government.

That is the current SC ruling, that the federal government can punish or suppress speech if that speech advocates the unlawful overthrow of the government.

I wonder how many times that has happened on this board.

 

[loosecannon]

Oh come on! There must be at least one alleged "strict constitutionalist" who is willing to admit that their head exploded when they found out that for the first 137 years of our nation's history the bill of rights was not enforceable within the states.

IOW you really had no rights except those the states provided. Unless of course you lived in DC or within a territory or military base.

 

[Revere]

The essence of the Constitution is to improve a good, but imperfect document.

Through the amendment process.

Which has been done more than two dozen times.

 

[loosecannon]

In this case only activist judges provided bill of rights protections to the citizens of the many states.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So is this the Liberal talking point now to trash the Constitution? I won't accept your Liberal premise that "we want to return to that time". Bullshit, no one is saying that except you Liberals.

Conservatism means smaller, less intrusive government that doesn't spend us into extinction. Something you Liberal/Communists still fail to understand.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

So is this the Liberal talking point now to trash the Constitution? I won't accept your Liberal premise that "we want to return to that time". Bullshit, no one is saying that except you Liberals.

Conservatism means smaller, less intrusive government that doesn't spend us into extinction. Something you Liberal/Communists still fail to understand.

Liberal =/= Communist. I think we can both agree that the Democratic party is the more liberal party (obviously). Would you care to explain then why the Democrats would: start the Cold War, Start the Vietnam war, start the Korean war, if they're such Communists? Do you even know what a Communist is? Hint: it's different than being a Socialist. If you're going to throw out labels, and political ideals as accusations-at least know what they mean. Once you do your homework and learn what those things are-come back.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So is this the Liberal talking point now to trash the Constitution? I won't accept your Liberal premise that "we want to return to that time". Bullshit, no one is saying that except you Liberals.

Conservatism means smaller, less intrusive government that doesn't spend us into extinction. Something you Liberal/Communists still fail to understand.

Liberal =/= Communist. I think we can both agree that the Democratic party is the more liberal party (obviously). Would you care to explain then why the Democrats would: start the Cold War, Start the Vietnam war, start the Korean war, if they're such Communists? Do you even know what a Communist is? Hint: it's different than being a Socialist. If you're going to throw out labels, and political ideals as accusations-at least know what they mean. Once you do your homework and learn what those things are-come back.

All you Liberals do is fight for complete control of the the economic engine and control over peoples lives via a nanny state. Find out which party the Communist Party USA backs for your own self, I already know.

Democrats starting the Cold War/Korean War and Vietnam War doesn't mean they aren't Communists NOW. It means that they used to love America and would defend it, that's not the case now. Just look at Obama's "Apology World Tour" that he went on.

Obama (Democrat) has appointed people to his administration who admire Chairman Mao (Communist).

Liberals = Communism. Do some reading on the modern Liberal/Progressive and come back.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not really. Should it bother me? I mean the Bill of Rights is a federal Bill of Rights. It says Congress shall make no law, not States shall make no law.

Of course, things have changed since the passage of the 14th amendment and the doctrine of incorporation has been active.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

So is this the Liberal talking point now to trash the Constitution? I won't accept your Liberal premise that "we want to return to that time". Bullshit, no one is saying that except you Liberals.

Conservatism means smaller, less intrusive government that doesn't spend us into extinction. Something you Liberal/Communists still fail to understand.

Liberal =/= Communist. I think we can both agree that the Democratic party is the more liberal party (obviously). Would you care to explain then why the Democrats would: start the Cold War, Start the Vietnam war, start the Korean war, if they're such Communists? Do you even know what a Communist is? Hint: it's different than being a Socialist. If you're going to throw out labels, and political ideals as accusations-at least know what they mean. Once you do your homework and learn what those things are-come back.

All you Liberals do is fight for complete control of the the economic engine and control over peoples lives via a nanny state. Find out which party the Communist Party USA backs for your own self, I already know.

Democrats starting the Cold War/Korean War and Vietnam War doesn't mean they aren't Communists NOW. It means that they used to love America and would defend it, that's not the case now. Just look at Obama's "Apology World Tour" that he went on.

Obama (Democrat) has appointed people to his administration who admire Chairman Mao (Communist).

Liberals = Communism. Do some reading on the modern Liberal/Progressive and come back.

First of all: I'm not a liberal.

Second of all I love this country, and have two members of my immediate family buried in Arlington-so don't tell me I don't love this country. My family has been sacrificed for it.

Third of all just because members of the communist party in the USA tend to back the Democrats-has no reflection on the Democratic party. Members of the Ku Klux Klan, and the American Nazi party tend to support Republicans over the Democrats-does this mean the Republicans are Nazis and Klan members? Of course not-that's just silly.

Fourth of all socialism essentially is when the workers own the means of production, and communism is when the government owns the means of production, or at least decides who does. Those are two fundamentally different systems. Now I don't endorse either one-but you can't be both a socialist and a communist-they're different.

Finally what Communist programs has Obama put in place in the US since taking office? Health care? You realize that it's not going to make the health care industry run by the government right? Or make it so the government would appoint the heads of the health care companies. So name one Communist-like program or law Obama has set in place.

 

[The T]

Not really. Should it bother me? I mean the Bill of Rights is a federal Bill of Rights. It says Congress shall make no law, not States shall make no law.

Of course, things have changed since the passage of the 14th amendment and the doctrine of incorporation has been active.

And should be amended For the damage it's done.

 

[loosecannon]

So, acting as a strict constitutionalist, there essentially were no rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

No rights to speech, guns or the bible.

Unless the states provided such. And that's the way it was for the first 137 years of our republic........

Who is a conservative now?

 

[The T]

So, acting as a strict constitutionalist, there essentially were no rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

No rights to speech, guns or the bible.

Unless the states provided such. And that's the way it was for the first 137 years of our republic........

Who is a conservative now?

What the Hell are the first TEN amendments...Moron.

 

[whitehall]

Read it and weep all you alleged strict constitutionalists:

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.

The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and that, consequently, the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Gitlow v. New York's partial reversal of that precedent began a trend toward nearly complete reversal; the Supreme Court now holds that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states. The Court upheld the state law challenged in Gitlow v. New York, which made it a crime to advocate the duty, need, or appropriateness of overthrowing government by force or violence. The Court's ruling on the effects of the Fourteenth Amendment was incidental to the decision, but nevertheless established an extremely significant precedent.

As justification for its decision, the Supreme Court relied on the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment. This provision, contained in Section One of the amendment, prohibits any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Specifically, in its decision the Court stated that "For present purposes we may and do assume that" the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states" (at 666). The Court would go on to use this logic of incorporation much more purposefully in other cases, such as De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional scholars refer to this process as the "incorporation doctrine," meaning that the Supreme Court incorporates specific rights into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So between 1833 and 1925 the bill of rights could be suspended in the various states by state law.

Is that the conservative past you want to return to? Is that the strict constitutionalism you long for?

Say what? Are there voices in the liberal head that tell the loose cannons that conservatives like the year 1924? What a desperately stupid post.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Finally what Communist programs has Obama put in place in the US since taking office? Health care? You realize that it's not going to make the health care industry run by the government right? Or make it so the government would appoint the heads of the health care companies. So name one Communist-like program or law Obama has set in place.

How soon you forget. Is it intentional? The gubamint took control of GM. You gonna call that Conservative?

 

[loosecannon]

So, acting as a strict constitutionalist, there essentially were no rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.

No rights to speech, guns or the bible.

Unless the states provided such. And that's the way it was for the first 137 years of our republic........

Who is a conservative now?

What the Hell are the first TEN amendments...Moron.

They didn't apply to the states until 1924, moron. Read the OP, learn something for once, moron.

 

[loosecannon]

Read it and weep all you alleged strict constitutionalists:

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states.

The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, and that, consequently, the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Gitlow v. New York's partial reversal of that precedent began a trend toward nearly complete reversal; the Supreme Court now holds that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states. The Court upheld the state law challenged in Gitlow v. New York, which made it a crime to advocate the duty, need, or appropriateness of overthrowing government by force or violence. The Court's ruling on the effects of the Fourteenth Amendment was incidental to the decision, but nevertheless established an extremely significant precedent.

As justification for its decision, the Supreme Court relied on the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment. This provision, contained in Section One of the amendment, prohibits any state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Specifically, in its decision the Court stated that "For present purposes we may and do assume that" the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states" (at 666). The Court would go on to use this logic of incorporation much more purposefully in other cases, such as De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional scholars refer to this process as the "incorporation doctrine," meaning that the Supreme Court incorporates specific rights into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So between 1833 and 1925 the bill of rights could be suspended in the various states by state law.

Is that the conservative past you want to return to? Is that the strict constitutionalism you long for?

Say what? Are there voices in the liberal head that tell the loose cannons that conservatives like the year 1924? What a desperately stupid post.

are you sniffing glue? Again?

I am not a liberal and you are not intelligible.

 

[Mad Scientist]

First of all: I'm not a liberal.

Oh sorry, you call yourselves "progressives" now right? That's an old term for Communist.

Second of all I love this country, and have two members of my immediate family buried in Arlington-so don't tell me I don't love this country. My family has been sacrificed for it.

I also have family members buried at Arlington. If you have more buried there, does that make your arguments better than mine? I served in the military as well.

Third of all just because members of the communist party in the USA tend to back the Democrats-has no reflection on the Democratic party. Members of the Ku Klux Klan, and the American Nazi party tend to support Republicans over the Democrats-does this mean the Republicans are Nazis and Klan members? Of course not-that's just silly.

Guess which party Robert "Sheets" Byrd belongs too. Hint: He wasn't a Republican.

Fourth of all socialism essentially is when the workers own the means of production, and communism is when the government owns the means of production, or at least decides who does. Those are two fundamentally different systems. Now I don't endorse either one-but you can't be both a socialist and a communist-they're different.

Well then by your own definition, Obama is a Communist because the government has a controlling interest in GM.

Finally what Communist programs has Obama put in place in the US since taking office? Health care? You realize that it's not going to make the health care industry run by the government right? Or make it so the government would appoint the heads of the health care companies. So name one Communist-like program or law Obama has set in place.

Bullshit. It will drive private insurers out of business so that the only alternative is Government ObamaCare.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Finally what Communist programs has Obama put in place in the US since taking office? Health care? You realize that it's not going to make the health care industry run by the government right? Or make it so the government would appoint the heads of the health care companies. So name one Communist-like program or law Obama has set in place.

How soon you forget. Is it intentional? The gubamint took control of GM. You gonna call that Conservative?

They bailed out GM-they did not take control of it. Same with the banks. Bailing out =/= taking control. Explain to me how they took control of those organizations (and add proof)-and you gotta point.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

First of all: I'm not a liberal.

Oh sorry, you call yourselves "progressives" now right? That's an old term for Communist.

Actually I'm a moderate independent. I'm pro-death penalty, against 90% of government handouts, and think we need to severely cut almost all of them, pro-life, pro-gun rights, for a fair flat-tax rate, I've voted for Republicans, as well as Democrats in the past. If that's what you call a liberal or a progressive-then I'm guilty as charged.

Second of all I love this country, and have two members of my immediate family buried in Arlington-so don't tell me I don't love this country. My family has been sacrificed for it.

I also have family members buried at Arlington. If you have more buried there, does that make your arguments better than mine? I served in the military as well.[/QUOTE]

No doesn't make my argument better than yours. But it means I do love my country. I tried to sign up for the marines but couldn't (I have a metal rod in my leg from a car accident in my teenage years, and couldn't pass the physical). If that didn't happen-I would have absolutely served.

Guess which party Robert "Sheets" Byrd belongs too. Hint: He wasn't a Republican.

That's because he was from a time where the KKK supported the Democrats. If you don't think the KKK and Nazi sympathizers prefer the republicans over the democrats-go to stormfront sometime.